Congress Weighs Pros, Cons of Calling Student-Athletes Employees

Members of Congress heard arguments concerning the hotly debated issue of whether student-athletes should be classified as employees during an April 8 hearing by the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions. As revenue in college sports skyrockets, proponents of employee classification have raised concerns over the alleged exploitation of these athletes. Opponents have emphasized the potential consequences for college sports programs across the country.  

Recent Decisions Fuel Debate

Much of the controversy surrounding employee classification for student-athletes stems from a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional director’s ruling in February 2024 that men’s basketball players at Dartmouth College were employees. The regional director argued that the players received equipment, lodging, apparel, meals, and financial aid, and were thereby performing work for compensation. The decision sparked debate in the House, and in March 2024, several subcommittees held hearings to discuss whether the ruling was a harmful misclassification or a step in the right direction for college athletics.  

On April 7, 2025, a federal district judge held a final hearing on the multibillion-dollar settlement between the NCAA and college athletes in the case House v. NCAA. If the landmark settlement is approved as expected, it would result in schools sharing revenue with student-athletes. As revenue from college sports has grown exponentially in recent years, the pressure to pay college athletes has also risen. The case has thus become part of the larger conversation regarding whether student-athletes have crossed the line into professional athletics and are, by extension, employees.

Legal Complexities

“The law has been very clear that the amount of revenue that an organization receives is not a factor in determining whether someone is or is not an employee,” Daniel Nash, an attorney with Littler in Washington, D.C., wrote in his testimony to the House subcommittee.  

Nash emphasized that college athletes have not met the employee test for decades, and increased revenue in limited sports such as men’s football and basketball is not a legitimate rationale, according to common law standards.  

Proponents of employee classification have argued that student-athletes are increasingly resembling professionals. 

But Nash wrote that college athletes “participate in their sports for reasons wholly unrelated to immediate compensation,” unlike professionals. Therefore, there is no equivalence.  

“Professional athletes are not required or admitted as students under academic standard at a university. Their sole focus is to play their sport,” he wrote. Students, on the other hand, must “obtain a degree in order to be eligible to participate” in their sport.  

However, “high-revenue college sports are almost indistinguishable from the pros” these days, said Ramogi Huma, executive director of the Norco, Calif.-based National College Players Association, in his testimony. Huma added that college sports function as a “full-time job” that continues “year-round” when considering the time devoted to workouts and training.  

Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., agreed, noting that colleges have an “incredible level of control over how an [athlete] spends their time.”  

Huma added that professional athletes have unions to negotiate time demands, and perhaps student-athletes would benefit from similar advocacy.  

However, Nash identified a potential problem with this proposal. “Collective bargaining involving only a single sports team would not be viable,” he wrote. “Nor would it be plausible to establish a ‘leaguewide’ bargaining unit” because many colleges are public or religiously affiliated and therefore outside NLRB jurisdiction. 

Academics or Sports?

There was also debate during the hearing over whether labeling student-athletes as employees would shift their priorities.  

“We’ve got to make sure that academics is priority one,” Subcommittee Chairman Rick Allen, R-Ga., said.

“My academic experience was certainly a high point of my career,” testified Morgyn Wynne, a former softball player at Oklahoma State University. She expressed concern that employment status would replace “the freedom for exploring academic interests” with “legal contracts, performance pressures, and financial decisions.”  

With less than 2% of student-athletes going professional after college, turning so many student-athletes away from academics could prove harmful for their later careers, Nash said.  

Huma disagreed, saying that the right of “employee status doesn’t negate” the benefits of college sports. 

Disparate Impact 

Allen asked whether “the viability of many college athletic programs, including many women’s sports and small-school athletic programs,” would suffer if employment status was adopted.  

Such a scenario is likely, as the cost associated with supporting student-athlete employment would result in schools eliminating other sports, said Jacqie McWilliams Parker, commissioner of the Charlotte, N.C.-based Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association (CIAA). In this case, “Olympic sports and women’s sports go first,” Parker said.  
(The CIAA is part of the NCAA’s Division II and consists entirely of historically Black colleges and universities, also known as HBCUs.)

Also discussed was the possible unfair impact of employment classification on smaller colleges across the country. 

“It’s easy to frame this issue as one of fairness,” Wynne said, but many institutions do not have the resources to support an employment model. 

“The obligation to provide salaries and benefits could exacerbate existing financial deficits, particularly for HBCUs and Division II schools. This may lead to reductions in athletic programs, cutting opportunities for student-athletes,” Parker wrote in her testimony. She emphasized the importance of a level playing field for schools of all sizes and resources.  

Huma, however, suggested it’s possible to offer employee status without creating financial strain for the institution. “Each school would have its own test,” he said. “Universities don’t have to do anything they can’t afford.”  

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., had a similar take. “There is a large spectrum of college athletics,” so “one rule doesn’t apply except that if you’re clearly an employee by federal law, then you’re an employee,” he said.

Protection Against Abuse

Speaking in favor of greater protections for student-athletes, Huma argued that college athletics is physically and economically a “predatory industry” where “abuses are not rare, they’re rampant.” In his opinion, employee status would offer protection and means of advocacy for student-athletes.  

Parker responded that an employment model is not necessary to protect athletes, who already enjoy protections under the NCAA. “I am part of the NCAA,” she said. “Should we be getting better? Absolutely.”

Common Ground

Legislators on both sides of the aisle called for a reasonable middle ground.  

“What you want is competitive balance,” said Rep. Michael Baumgartner, R-Wash. He suggested pooling revenue from the more profitable sports to support others.

DeSaulnier agreed with this idea and added that athletes should have the power to defend and advocate for themselves against the systemic issues that Huma mentioned.  

“College athletes are not a monolith,” so not every athlete would necessarily qualify as an employee if an employment model were adopted, DeSaulnier said. Rather, a fact-specific analysis would be used to determine classification on an individual basis.  

Allen, meanwhile, maintained that employee status would harm student-athletes, but he supported conducting a poll of college athletes for their views on the subject.  

Rachel Zheliabovskii is a specialist, B2C content, at SHRM.